Pay FAA or cancel Airventure?

[Joe LaMantia]

A-men Bill,

The timing of this couldn't be worse! I do think we at least have one "ace in the hole" and that is the loss of millions in economic benefit if AirVenture is cancelled. I think HQ is scrabbling at this early stage but there will be hell to pay in D.C. when the Wisconsin representatives get wind of this and the fall out amongst the various AirVenture sponsors are faced with a cancellation. The economic impact far exceeds $500K! I suspect if GA withheld fuel purchases for a month the loss in fuel taxes would exceed that $500K as well. This may end in another FAA whimper rather than a bang!

Joe

[wa6ilt]

First time I ever created a poll and didn't put in enough choices and it doesn't seem to let you edit after you submit. Next time.

I would like to see a choice of EAA does not pay. Let the FAA decided if they want to provide the service. This fee is unconstitutional. Only congress can create fees and tax.

i would stare the administrator in the face and tell him we are not going to comply. Let him take the next step.

they will then have to decide to close the tower, staff with the controllers they have there or do,the right thing.

EAA should request a house hearing so the administrator can answer questions under oath.

[TedK]

Forgive me if this seems like rehashing, but why do we not staff our ATC needs ourselves? We all claim we send too much $ to DC, but then we complain when the govt try's to trim its expenses.

Who here is a Controller? If you are a Current licensed Controller, would you volunteer to Control at Airventure? (Pls forward this thread to your Controller friends)

Military Controllers: Weigh in here too. Can you take leave to volunteer to Control?

How do we solve this problem ourselves without the FAA and without becoming a special interest?

PS: I, personally, would contribute to provide travel, lodging, food to volunteer controllers.

[Ylinen]

The per diem rate for Oshkosh is $77 for lodging, $46 for meals x 78 controllers x 6 days is @ $58000. Even if the controllers went first class you could not get to $500,000. As far as over time how much could that be with the airport closed at night and during the air shows.

no way the EAA should pay, but if they do they should ask for an itemizes bill.

[FloridaJohn]

As far as over time how much could that be with the airport closed at night and during the air shows.

The overtime pay is supposedly for the controllers left at home who now have to cover for the controllers at Oshkosh.

[Mayhemxpc]

Another tricky thing. Either the FAA is under sequestration or it is not. DoD is and we have been told that overtime is flat out not authorized. If the FAA is not restricted from overtime, that means it is FUNDED for these things (as we know that they are) and should not be charging for ANY personnel costs.

As I have said before, I am sure that the EAA's negotiators know these things. At least 28 Senators know this, too.

I have never understood a government agency that PLANS for the use of overtime to cover normal or predictable operational requirements. (and AirVenture is a predictable requirement.) You take the total number of man-hours required to perform your planned work for the year, divide by 1,688 (Full time equivalent hours) and that is how many people you need to have employed for that year. At least that is how I have justified my personnel requirements in various assignments in DoD. (That is for civilians. Military time is calculated somewhat differently.) Overtime is for unexpected requirements and emergencies (not exactly the same.) AirVenture does not fall into this category.

Well, I am not going to fix the FAA's manpower and budget mess here -- but no one else should be required to pay for it, either.

[rwanttaja]

I have never understood a government agency that PLANS for the use of overtime to cover normal or predictable operational requirements. (and AirVenture is a predictable requirement.)

Happens in the civilian world all the time. The costs of hiring an employee is much more than their hourly wage. It's often cheaper to pay existing employees overtime than to hire the number of full-time people it would take to cover the same jobs without overtime.

This is especially true in jobs where the surges come at specific times. Say you need 400 labor-hours per week for 51 weeks per year. That's ten employees working 8-hour days. Say week 52 is the annual weed-whacker and slide trombone festival, and you need coverage for the same ten positions for 12 hours a day, or 600 total labor hours. If everyone's still working eight hours a day (e.g, no overtime) that 200 additional labor hours translates to 40 hours per day, or five additional employees.

The question is, what would those five additional employees do the REST of the year, when only ten total employees are sufficient?

In the example above, the total amount of overtime needed per year is 200 hours...one-tenth of what a single full-time employee normally works in a year. But hiring one additional full-time employee won't help, since you'll have only 11 employees during the festival, and they still have to work overtime.

In the civilian world, this is often handled by hiring contract or temp workers...or just firing people when the need is over.

Ron Wanttaja

[gmatejcek]

Some swaggering (insert favorite negative adjective here) in DC figures we're rich, adictied, and will do whatever we're told. I'd hate to miss my 36th convention, but enough is enough. All those planes converging on KOSH burn an incredible quantity of fuel and consume tires. Those items are taxed to fund ADAP, which has already been hijacked to fund the FAA, so we've already been paying the freight from the get-go. Then there is the vast economic impact to the state of WI and the aviation industry in general. I suggest we don't blink- if some holier than thou bureacrat wants to sign his name to the order that chokes the goose and stops the golden eggs, so be it. I suspect some big guns will be brought to bear and that will result one less burreaucrat in DC, and perhaps the FAA will get back to their charter of promoting aviation instead of this self-appointed task of taxing the biggest aviation event in the world out of existence. Then next year we can toast the departed bureaucrat year in Scholler when the convention resumes.

[scott f]

Called and shut off my auto renew on my membership today (would have renewed end of this month). I do not want to renew until I see how EAA handles this issue.

[cub builder]

... and perhaps the FAA will get back to their charter of promoting aviation....

You might note that the FAA Mission statement below does not mention promotion of aviation in any way, shape or form. Expecting that from the FAA is wishful thinking, but certainly not their mission.

-CubBuilder
----------------

FAA Mission Statement Quoted directly in it's complete form from <http://www.faa.gov/about/mission/>

Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

Our Values

• Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
• Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
• Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
• People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
• Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.